Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Year Two RS > Religious Language Two > Flashcards

Religious Language Two Flashcards

1
Q

logical positivism

A

a movement that claimed that assertions have to be capable of being tested empirically if they are to be meaningful

  • approach of the Vienna Circle
  • avoided metaphysics as meaningless and believed the task of the philosopher was the logical analysis of sentences separating the meaningful from the meaningless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

cognitive

A

truth claims that can be proven true or false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

non cognitive

A

a claim that can’t be tested to be true or false like ‘shut that door’
thinks like prayers - it is not appropriate to ask whether they are true or false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

falsification

A

providing evidence to determine something is false which is often easier to do than proving something true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is the problem for any theist

A

how one talks about God in a meaningful way if God is transcendent and ineffable
for other people the problem about God talk is whether it means anything at all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what general stance does Richard Dawkins take

A
  • takes the bulk of religious sentences as cognitive but obviously false
  • the believer speaks untrue sentences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

give an example of religious debate over whether something is cognitive or not

A
  • the first two chapters of Genesis
  • it matters very much whether it was to be understood cognitively or otherwise
  • Origen in the 3rd century said it made no sense to be seen as a statement of fact but should be understood figuratively
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

denotation

A

when the word stands for something as a label for it such as the word ‘window’ standing for the part of the wall that has glass in it
the word has a literal meaning which can be taken at face value

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

connotation

A

when the word carries other associations with it so ‘window’ might carry associations of people finding space in a busy period
meaning beyond the literal sense of the word
can mean different things to people in different contexts or even unintended meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what was the Vienna Circle

A
  • their attitude was that religious statements lack meaning and there is no point in raising questions about whether God exists because there is nothing to talk about
  • logistical positivists
  • if language is to be meaningful its claims have to be capable of being tested using the five senses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

who was not a member of the Vienna Circle

A

Wittgenstein

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what was Wittgenstein keen to establish

A
  • the limits of human knowledge and imagination
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

how did Auguste Comte influence the Vienna Circle

A
  • followed his thinking
  • the V circle generally believed that theological interpretations of events/experiences belonged in the past to an unenlightened age when God was used as an explanation for what science had not yet mastered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what was the thinking of Auguste Comte

A
  • claimed people’s thinking passed through various stages over time
  • growing understanding of science led people to abandon what he saw as old-fashioned ways of explaining things in favour of more accurate ideas
  • the theological era had been replaced by a metaphysical era philosophy filled in gaps
  • then positivist age when science and empirical evidence was the only thing deemed useful and the ability to test things
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what do logical positivists think

A
  • the philosopher’s job is to determine whether sentences are meaningful or not
  • not to decide whether it is true or false but whether it is sense or nonsense and can be tested by the five senses
  • to assert that Ben Nevis is the highest mountain is untrue but it is not meaningless as it can be tested
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what did A.J Ayer attempt to do in his book Language Truth and Logic

A
  • support logical positivism
  • set down rules by which language can be judged to see whether it really means anything
  • statements are only meaningful if they fall into one of two categories: analytic or synthetic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what are analytic statements

A
  • true by definition - we don’t have to check they’re true
  • give us info about what words mean
  • true or false depending on whether the words in the statement actually mean what is suggested
  • tautologies
  • meaningful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

give examples of analytical sentences

A
  • a rug is a floor covering

- all triangles have three sides

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what is tautotogy

A
  • a sentence that is true by definition but contains no factual information
  • ‘a square has four sides’
  • analytic statements because they are a priori and true by definition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what are synthetic statements

A
  • empirically verifiable propositions
  • tells us something beyond the meaning of its own terms doesn’t just define
  • ‘Becca is allergic to nuts’
  • logical positivists said for them to be meaningful have to be able to test the truth with senses
  • we don’t have to actually carry out the test but just know that it can be tested
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what did Ayer distinguish between with his verification

A
  • strong and weak verification

- direct and indirect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what does Ayer say about strong verification

A
  • it is impossible
  • we can never conclusively make any statement about the world as our senses can be mistaken even about what we think is in front of us as we can’t get out of our minds to check
  • historical statements and the general conclusions of science are unverifiable
  • if we were to ask for verification in the strong sense, every factual sentence would be meaningless which would be irrational as none could reach this high standard of proof
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what does Ayer say about weak verification

A
  • what he chose over strong verification
  • it is sufficient to state what observations would make the sentence probable
  • verifiable in principle not fact
  • there are mountains on the far side of the moon is verifiable in principle but not fact - it is still meaningful just untrue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what is Ayer’s direct verification

A
  • something is directly verifiable if it is a statement which records an actual or possible observation
  • verifiable by observation
  • you can check it yourself
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what is Ayer’s indirect verification

A
  • can be verified if other directly verifiable evidence could support it
  • e.g. scientists predicted and demonstrated the existence of black holes even though they cannot be directly observed
  • know we would need to do verify something
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what is the impact of Ayer’s verification principle on the use of RL

A
  • if synthetic statements are only meaningful if they can be tested empirically which means religious claims could then be considered meaningless
  • ‘God created the world’ cannot be shown to be true or false using the senses
  • For Ayer, the question itself of whether there is a God is meaningless, religious faith is nonsense and genuine religious experiences is impossible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what is the claim ‘God does not exist’ for Ayer

A
  • still as nonsense as saying God does exist
  • it too cannot be tested
  • adding a negative does not make it more sensical
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what is an obvious criticism of the verification principle

A
  • the principle itself is neither analytic or empirically verifiable and so is meaningless by its own rules
  • logical positivists tried to argue for a class of ‘protocol statements’ arguing the v principle is a statement of method
  • but to invent another class undermines the original belief that there are only two types of significant proposition - analytical and synthetic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what is foundationalism

A
  • the belief that all knowledge is based on some unarguable self-evident truth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what are we committing ourselves too if we adopt the verification principle

A
  • a form of foundationalism
  • the idea that some types of ideas are so self-evidently true they need no further justification
  • e.g. Descartes’ cogito ergo sum
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

how does the verification principle fall into foundationalism

A
  • logical positivists claim there is an absolute foundation (the v principle) which itself needs no justification
  • on the basis of this principle we can then go on to assert the rules for determining the meaningfulness of every other sentence
  • but it is not clear that the statement that there are only 2 types of signif sentences can be justified other than by asserting it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

why do many philosophers reject foundationalism

A
  • it can lead to a kind of thinking that just knows it is right and has no means of justifying the claim
  • it seems implausible to say it is self-evident that there are only 2 types of significant sentences as how can we ever say we ‘know’ this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

what are the underlying assumptions of logical positivism

A
  • it assumes its scientists and scientific statements that tell us about the world
  • of course it is true they do give us information but it is false that that’s the only informative language
  • to restrict all info and understanding to that expressed through sciences misses something
  • there are other methods
  • poetry e.g. reveals to us aspects of human experience that it alone can express
  • language of poetry not any more cognitive than music language but it is revelatory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

how do great pieces of art and other ways to science reveal new ways of looking at the world

A
  • in a way that is rarely straightforwardly cognitive or, in the logical positivist sense, verifiable scientific sentences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

in reducing significant language to two opposed categories of analytic and synthetic statements what does logical positivism leave no place for

A
  • other valuable and significant contributions to human knowledge like those of poetry and political science that are not straightforwardly cognitive or are unverifiable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

discuss how the heart of logical positivists beliefs is the assumption that a verifiable sentence is a scientific one

A
  • a Shakespeare sonnet is not a scientific hypothesis
  • but one would have to be a very bold literary critic to assert it is without meaning
  • to reduce sentences to two classes, the meaningful as can be scientifically investigated and the meaningless, seems to misrepresent the fullness of meaning
  • it is not a self-evident truth that the many uses of sentences can be so easily reduced to just two classes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

give a sentence about Ayer based on Wittgenstein’s ideas

A
  • Ayer is reductionist
  • Ayer is playing the scientific language game but trying to apply it to religion
  • bring in Brummer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

what is the thinking of Vincent Brummer

A
  • to treat the sentences of faith as if they were scientific sentences as the V theory does is to commit an error of understanding
  • like Phillips he believed that to treat them in terms set by Enlightenment thinkers like Hume who look at them as failed scientific sentences is a mistake
  • just as the methods of scientific analysis are inappropriate to poetry, they are also to the experience and utterances of faith
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

what is the Brummer quote about the effects of science on our thinking

A
  • the success of science means that the search for knowledge has become the paradigmatic model for all our thinking
  • many of us assume all thinking is aimed at extending our knowledge
  • the effect of this mindset for the way religious faith is understood has been disastrous
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

what does Brummer argue we tend to assume in modernity

A
  • that if something is not scientific or measurable it is not significant
  • but even to think like that is to make an assumption we cannot justify
  • it is not self-evidently true and it is difficult to see what could be evidence to demonstrate that the modern view is correct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

what is the criticism of the supporters of logical positivism rejecting metaphysics

A
  • when they do they are constructing an alternative metaphysics of their own
  • to dismiss the possibility of God seems to necessitate a particular world view
  • their assumption that things are only significant if open to scientific investigation seems to be based on a metaphysical assumption about the way things are with nothing knowable/reality beyond science
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

what did Dorothy Emmet think about logical positivism

A
  • fail to understand the nature of metaphysical thinking
  • it was an error of Enlightenment thinking to treat natural theology and its claims as scientific propositions equivalent to those of conventional science (univocally)
  • the claims of natural theology should be understood as analogies not scientific accounts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

what natural human inclination does Dorothy Emmet think we have

A
  • a natural human inclination to see our attempts to make sense of the mysteries of existence as if what we know is all there is to be known
  • we look for a complete explanation of the kind that we want science to provide
  • but faith is not about having a complete explanation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

what does Dorothy Emmet’s account suggest

A
  • that the logical positivist characterisation of religion (and metaphysics more widely) fails to understand not only the type of language involved but the modes of thinking which our sentences represent.
  • analogical thinking is not scientifically verifiable, but we use analogies to help us understand the world
  • to say the world is like a single organism is not scientifically verifiable but might be a way for someone to understand the ecosystem
  • if it helps that person understand it isn’t an empty concept
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

what did John Hick argue

A
  • God-talk is eschatologically verifiable
  • religion is not meaningless because its truth is verifiable in principle thus meeting the conditions of verificationism
  • when we die we encounter God and all truths about him will be known
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

what does St Paul write in support of Hick’s argument that religion is eschatologically verifiable

A
  • “at present we only see puzzling reflections in a mirror but one day we shall see face to face. My knowledge now is partial, then it will be whole, like God’s knowledge of me”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

what is Hick’s parable of the Celestial City

A
  • two men travelling along a road
  • one believes it leads to the Celestial City, one believes it leads to no where
  • they must travel it because its the only one
  • they encounter the same hardships and moments of joy but one sees them as part of the pilgrimage to the city seeing obstacles as trials and pleasant parts as encouragement
  • the other has no choice but to endure them even tho he thinks to city
  • when they turn the corner they find out who is write
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

what’s the point in Hick’s parable of the Celestial City in demonstrating religion as eschatologically verifiable

A
  • Hick is arguing that many religious statements rest on the claim that there is an afterlife and they are meaningful because they can be verified when we die
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

discuss an objection to logical positivism in terms of conversation

A
  • ‘Shut the door’ is not scientific or verifiable or tautology but that doesn’t mean it is insignificant
  • it is not nonsense and it prompts a response so shouldn’t be considered meaningless like LPs want it to be
  • if someone says ‘Praise the Lord’ a response can be made, one might behave differently by choosing the praise
  • prayer enables response and changes things
  • so does statements like ‘I don’t believe in God’ prompts response
  • saying I do believe may change the way I lead my life and thus that seems to be a significant response
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

what is the Logical Positivists approach

A
  • binary
  • either a proposition is meaningful in the sense he wants or it is meaningless
  • there is no other option
  • but surely speech is richer ad more interesting/complex than that
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

conclusions of Verification and Logical Positivism

A
  • the challenge of LP was important - forced philosophers to reconsider the basis of their claims as see if what they said had meaning
  • but the issue is with the binary nature of the LP challenge
  • the question posed is either or - meaningful as scientifically verifiable or meaningless
  • too simple
  • even the Vienna Circle philosophers eventually changed their mind and realised it was too simple
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

what was one of the main conclusions reached by Wittgenstein during his life (E)

A
  • that reality is not all completely intelligible to us
  • there are many aspects of reality we can experience with our senses and talk about
  • but other aspects we cannot experience and so have difficulty understanding/conceptualising (doesn’t mean they’re not out there though)
  • Wittgenstein thought people should confine themselves to only taking about those parts of reality that can be conceptualised as we are unable to talk about the other areas meaningfully whether they have truth or not
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Wittgenstein quote about what we can speak about (E)

A

“whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

what did early Wittgenstein attempt to do

A
  • set out principles to demonstrate what could and couldn’t be expressed in language
  • to show the limitations of philosophy and human reason
  • he had a profound impact on the Vienna Circle and Logical positivists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

what did Wittgenstein later realise about his earlier work

A
  • that he been wrong about the limitations of the meaningfulness of language and his criteria for determining meaningfulness may have been too narrow
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

what did Wittgenstein’s later work explore

A
  • the ways in which language can have meaning in different ways and on different levels
  • CONTEXT
  • how words can indicate multiple ideas at a time
  • how it changes as used by different people in different times of history
57
Q

how did Wittgenstein think we should think of language

A
  • in terms of a game which we know how to play once we know the rules
  • he was not implying language is trivial/plays tricks
  • but the analogy of game highlights the scope and limitations of language
  • a word’s meaning comes from the circumstance in which they are uttered and the meaning of other words used alongside them
58
Q

what is Wittgenstein’s analogy of the game of chess

A
  • in chess the rules state how all the pieces can move
  • however to talk about how the queen or pawn moves only makes sense in the context of the game of chess
  • we might learn that a certain piece is called a king but we don’t get the significance of that until we have played the game and understand the significance of the king within the game
  • rules of language function like chess
  • if you use words in a way that doesn’t follow the rules of the language then you will be talking nonsense
  • to say the king can move one square in any given direction is an instruction that only makes sense in chess
59
Q

what do you have to do if you want to play the language game

A
  • just accept the rules that have been agreed by everyone else
  • the language game has a particular context and it is against this context that the Language Game makes sense
60
Q

what did Wittgenstein mean by the phrase ‘Language Games’

A
  • Wittgenstein did not mean the way words are used/have meaning rigidly follows rules like pieces do in a chess game
  • he meant words only make sense in the context of a background of other words that belong to the same game
  • e.g. philosophy used words like necessary and proposition in a way that often differs from the everyday use of such words
61
Q

give Wittgenstein’s example of the word ‘result’

A
  • sports commentator may use it to indicate the outcome of a match
  • scientist to talk about a piece of data from an experiment
  • a university admissions tutor to refer to grades
62
Q

what is Wittgenstein’s ‘Lebensform’

A
  • ‘form of life’
  • to denote the context in which language might be used
  • sports commentating is a form of life just is laboratory work and so they use the word ‘result’ differently but in relation to their own contexts/Lebensforms
  • we exist in different contexts and so can switch how we use language like swapping between an interview and talking to friends
63
Q

when is language meaningful for Wittgenstein

A
  • language can only be used meaningfully if it is used in the appropriate way in the particular language game in question
  • as long as people are using the language, the game exists and to people using language in that language game, the language is meaningful
64
Q

what is learning a language like

A
  • like learning a game
  • where we understand how and when to use particular words by seeing how they are used
  • we accept that words are used in certain ways because we recognise the role they have in the whole game
65
Q

what is one very important implication of Wittgenstein’s work

A
  • that language is not private
  • a language game is something that is shared and used by groups of people
  • the games can develop, evolve and drop out of use
  • but as long as people are using the language, the game exists and to people using language in that language game, the language is meaningful
66
Q

what did Wittgenstein reject

A
  • his earlier empiricist approach to language
  • this distinguishes him from LPs like Ayer who believed statements only meaningful if verifiable with sense experience or are an analytic statement
67
Q

what does it mean that Wittgenstein showed statements are groundless

A
  • groundless beliefs are meaningful as shape lives
  • you can’t empirically prove things in another language mean something else - its just how we describe something
  • religious beliefs shapes the way the world is seen in a similar sort of way
  • our beliefs about whether there is a Last Judgement e.g. will be groundless as we can’t produce any evidence for or against them
  • but they will shape the way we think and the decisions we make
68
Q

what is the statement ‘this is a piece of paper’

A
  • groundless
  • we cannot find reasoning to support why we call it this
  • it is just how we were educated to conceptualise the world
  • definitions are groundless beliefs
69
Q

why do groundless beliefs have meaning even if they can’t be proven

A
  • because they impact the way in which we understand the world and how we act
70
Q

what happens if we apply the concept of Language Games to religious language

A
  • reveals different meaning to verification principle
  • the language of religious belief like ‘omnipotence’ and ‘God’ is understandable and meaningful to those who participate in the game
  • there is no reason in Wittgenstein’s theory to suppose one LG is better than another
71
Q

what is an implication of Wittgenstein’s LG in terms of understanding

A
  • you need to be a member of a religious tradition to fully understand the meaning, significance and aura around a word or expression of belief
72
Q

what is a problem with verification with reference to Wittgenstein’s LG

A
  • too narrow so can’t understand
  • the problem with theories like verification when applied to religious belief is that they are applying a LG more appropriate for discussing the physical world than believers’ statements about God
73
Q

what is a strength of Wittgenstein’s theory

A
  • it gives believers a way to express the meaningfulness of RL at the same time as explaining why talk of God’s love or existence does not have the same meaning or significance for an atheist
74
Q

discuss the thinking of D.Z. Phillips

A
  • Wittgensteinian approach
  • RL just a way of defining the rules of the game of religion
  • ‘God is love’ is not description of an existent being but a way of showing how the word ‘God’ is to be used
  • RL meaningful for those who genuinely use it - does not need to be justified to those who don’t participate in the LG of RL
  • many of the terms and concepts only make sense within the context of the ‘game’ of religion
75
Q

what is the thinking of Peter Donovan

A
  • he explained Wittgenstein’s thinking
  • it is only when we are engaged in the Jewish and Christian religious LGs that the question ‘Was Jesus the Messiah?’ can be properly understood
  • and it is answered differently within each of those two language games
  • that LG way of speaking is a useful reminder that misunderstanding and confusion are likely to result if statements are taken away from their context
76
Q

what is the Wittgensteinian philosopher in a position to do

A
  • engaged simply in the contemplation of LG is in a position to point out areas of conceptual confusion
  • can show us where the differences between the language used occur
77
Q

what does having a religious belief involve

A
  • faith
  • to hold faith involves many things/language forms
  • to understand faith, it is necessary in Wittgensteinian terms, to contemplate all the uses and LGs
  • these games are not fixed and change over time as new believers and ideas come and go
  • if we contemplate the meaning of ‘faith’ as used by different speakers we may see they are not necessarily in direct contradiction
  • their usage can be quite different even though they are using the same meaning
78
Q

how might different people see faith

A
  • some see it as good entailing life changing devotion to God
  • to someone else the term might simply mean ‘superstition’ or ‘foolishness’
  • unless we take care to analyse how terms are used by someone, we may misunderstand what is meant and perhaps attack them for the wrong reasons
  • it might be possible for a believer to say she also doesn’t believe in the God Dawkins rejects because the God he rejects is not what she means by the word ‘God’
79
Q

Aside from the ‘rules of games’ what other games analogy does Wittgenstein use

A
  • with religion as well as games there is the concept of developing skill, having goals, achieving success, practice and commitment
  • the more people participate in religious behaviour the more they will understand the language and the special meanings and nuances of its use
80
Q

what approach is Wittgenstein

A
  • not about facts more non-cognitive approach
  • statements like ‘God loves us’ operates like a rule in a game as opposed to a statement of fact
  • if you want to understand and participate in religion you have to accept the rules otherwise the game is meaningless
  • and as you become more immersed in the community of Christianity (the Lebensform) you develop a deeper understanding of what ‘God loves us’ means in this context
  • you will be able to apply it to your own life and understand its implications
81
Q

what are the three approaches to scripture

A
  • Literalists
  • Conservatives
  • Liberals
82
Q

what is the literalist approach to scripture

A
  • treat every sentence as true and cognitive
83
Q

what is the conservative approach to scripture

A
  • accept the general message as from God
  • treat it as the word of God but accepting the role of Biblical scholarship
  • don’t argue every word is factually true but believes the message to be authentic
  • roughly the position of the Catholic Church which has never taken the Bible literally
84
Q

what is the liberal approach to scripture

A
  • take a very open approach

- see it fundamentally as a human document to be interpreted in the light of our times

85
Q

what is Biblical scholarship, hermeneutics and exegesis

A
  • Biblical scholarship is studying the Bible
  • hermeneutics - knowledge dealing with interpretation of biblical texts
  • exegesis - critical interpretation of scripture

Hermeneutics is the theories and methods for studying text. Exegesis is the interpretation of text. The difference is in theory verses practice.

86
Q

what do literalists represent within the Christian tradition

A
  • a minority
  • seems to have been a reaction to the apparent threat to faith offered by the discoveries of 19th century science
  • fundamentalism
87
Q

what is fundamentalism

A
  • insisted on the literalness and inerrancy of the Bible in ways not previously encountered in scholarship
  • term came from Niagara Bible Conference which defined certain notions as ‘fundamental to faith’
88
Q

what are the five fundamentals of faith which fundamentalists cannot deny

A
  • the inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the absolute accuracy of scripture
  • the virgin birth of Christ
  • the belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin
  • the bodily resurrection of Christ
  • the historical reality of Christ’s miracles
89
Q

what is the most controversial of the five fundamentals of faith

A
  • the belief in the absolute accuracy of scripture

- even thinkers in the third century like Origen didn’t read the Bible as literal

90
Q

what approach do most Christians take to scripture

A
  • not a literalist or fundamentalist one
  • Catholic Church and many others reject literalism
  • but this leaves open the question of how scripture should be interpreted
91
Q

what is the Bible

A
  • a collection of writings of many different types, laws, poetry, allegories, history, teaching etc…
92
Q

discuss how conventions for writing history change

A
  • if I published a history book today without good evidence and adding things in I would be criticised for been unreliable and writing fiction
  • yet ancient historians did all of those things
  • herodotus seemed unable to resist a good story
  • thucydides puts into the mouths of major characters long speeches with no record of them necessarily
  • writers of Genesis are inconsistent between 1 and 2
93
Q

why does it seem absurd to treat the entirety of scripture as straightforwardly cognitive or non-cognitive

A
  • because of the inconsistencies

- the conventions for writing history change immensely

94
Q

how are the Gospels inconsistent

A
  • in Mark both thieves crucified with Jesus mock him

- elsewhere there is the morally uplifting tale of one of the thieves recognising the innocence of Jesus

95
Q

what seems to be the best approach to sacred texts

A
  • the Wittgensteinian approach where we understand the meaning of the sentences in terms of the way they are been used not giving the single univocal meaning
  • to do so we demand sensitivity to intention etc… what is sought by scriptural criticism
  • a literalist approach offers no form of scriptural criticism and seems bound to fail
96
Q

what does Aquinas think about RL

A
  • theory of analogy
  • the descriptions of God are been used in a particular way as analogies which enable us to say something positive about God
  • points to the fact there is no one right use for language we have to seek meaning in the context of our discussion of God and be aware our analysis is faulty if we think we precisely grasp those meanings
  • (A) points out the limitations of our understanding
97
Q

how are Aquinas and Wittgenstein alike

A
  • both concerned with identifying the boundaries of meaning
  • the concern remains careful textual analysis within its proper context
  • both concerned with how language is used - (A) wasn’t trying to explain the meaning of terms used analogically but show how they’re used
  • both concerned with conceptual clarity
98
Q

what are the differences between Aquinas and Wittgenstein

A
  • identified by McCabe
  • whether it is language which creates thought or vice versa
  • for (A) it reflects our ideas
  • for (W) language is the starting point for ideas, a precondition
  • (A) takes language as a given - we just have it and use it as well as we can to express our thoughts
  • (W) it is the language games we play that determine the thoughts we are able to formulate
99
Q

how does Aquinas write different to Wittgenstein and answer a different question

A
  • (A) is specifically writing as philosophical theologian
  • develops analogy idea, though it is significant to other uses of language, specifically to deal with how we use terms about God
  • (A) answers ‘how we can use language to speak significantly about God’
  • (W) question is not specifically religious asking more generally about what language does/how we perceive it
100
Q

how do Russell and Gellner object to Language Games

A
  • Bertrand Russel likens the obsession with meaning to those who always sharpen their tools but never use them
  • Ernest Gellner compares it to someone who takes apart a perfectly performing clock and then wonders why it no longer works
101
Q

what are the four criticisms to Wittgenstein’s LG

A
  • circularity
  • choosing between language games
  • the question of truth
  • Wittgensteinian fideism
102
Q

what is the circularity criticism of Wittgenstein’s LG

A
  • we find the meaning of words from the LG from which they take their meaning
  • the meaning of LG comes from the words that make it up
  • it seems for a LG to make sense there has to be some external link to give meaning to the whole
  • the question is whether LG can have the autonomy some attribute but the link makes these not autonomous
  • though Wittgenstein does not/cannot tell us what this link is
103
Q

what is the criticism of Wittgenstein’s LG that is choosing between them

A
  • if all LG are autonomous we may ask how we can justify paying attention to one rather than another
  • i can describe difference between game of Christianity and atheism but part of religious life s making judgement about the relative merits of the two
  • the believer and the atheist experience their choices as meaning more than simply opting for playing one game over another
  • if this was the case science and theology could say nothing to each other as each occupies its own realm
  • if we simply say that theology and science are different games then what can we say about that discourse in which they attempt to debate with each other
104
Q

what is the the criticism of Wittgenstein that is the question of truth

A
  • the question of what those in a community believe and whether those beliefs are true matters within the game
  • in faith community God is not a given term with meaning to the community but central to the notion of faith that God might not exist
  • that is why she has faith rather than certainty but faith her belief is true
  • LG does not address the issue of truth, RL is just another LG and (W) is concerned how we use language rather than whether the words we use express reality
105
Q

what is fideism

A

the belief that all that is required in religion is faith, which has and needs no justification
this belief is considered heretical by the Catholic Church

106
Q

define heretical

A
  • believing or practicing in religious heresy

- holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted

107
Q

what question was raised by Ayer about Wittgenstein’s LG

A
  • if each LG has its own reality are not (W) followers committed to accepting talk about fairies and witches
  • just because someone describes someone as bewitches does not mean there are demons in the world
  • there are good reasons why one might want to characterise that entire LG as untrue and not simply to say that a given sentence is true or false only within the game
  • surely Ayer thinks we want to argue that superiority of physics over talk of magic spells and potions
108
Q

what did Nielsen think about Wittgenstein committing fideism

A
  • according to LG theory ideas of reality, intelligibility and reason become ambiguous as their precise meaning can only be determined within their given discourse
  • there is no outside position from which one can criticise a given discourse
  • if this is true then to be within the game of faith seems to mean faith becomes fideism
109
Q

how does Phillips defend claims that Wittgenstein’s LGs is fideism

A
  • said its not simply one of blind faith
  • much religious belief is confused and muddled and finding true meaning requires intellectual rigour and is arduous - neither blind nor simple
110
Q

does Phillips defence of Wittgenstein really address Nielsen’s argument of fideism

A
  • it is one thing to argue the LG approach does justice to atheism and resolves conceptual muddles but it can’t settle the external question of whether the Lebensforms themselves are true because we cannot justify the claim we can only really talk about what goes on within the game
111
Q

who are the members of the Theology and Falsification: a symposium

A
  • Flew
  • Mitchell
  • Hare
112
Q

discuss the stalemate between logical positivists and defenders of religious belief and language

A
  • LPs said RL was meaningless and statements that sounded like assertions were no more than ‘utterances’ without any genuine content or significance
  • defenders of religious belief/language disagreed and thus a stalemate seemed to have been reached
  • Flew wanted to turn the debate in a more fruitful direction by raising some fresh issues and questions
113
Q

what did Flew suggest

A
  • instead of a statement needing to be verifiable to have meaning, it should need to be falsifiable to have meaning
114
Q

what did Flew mean in saying that statements should be falsifiable to have meaning

A
  • we do not necessarily have to be in a position of being able to provide supporting evidence for what we are saying
  • but we should know when we say something what we are ruling out when we make our claims
115
Q

what is the original parable (John Wisdom’s parable of the gardener) from which Flew adapts his own parable

A
  • two explorers find a clearing where some parts look cared for and others do not
  • one man thinks there is a gardener the other does not
  • the point is that the world is capable of different interpretations of the same observations
  • neither find the gardener or experience anything the other does not but their belief is different
  • wisdom suggests that the difference between the believer and the non-believer is not a difference about the facts of the world but a disagreement about how those same facts are to be interpreted
116
Q

what is Flew’s version of the parable of the gardener

A
  • the explorers decide to settle their argument by waiting for the gardener but he never appears
  • the one who believes in the existence of the gardener suggests he is invisible
  • the believer continues to qualify his assertion that there is a gardener by saying he is invisible, silent etc… until the sceptic asks
  • “but what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or no gardener at all?”
  • there is nothing left of the original belief but he won’t accept evidence to the contrary and re-shape belief
  • unfalsifiable so meaningless
117
Q

what is the outcome of Flew’s parable of the gardener

A
  • what seemed a genuine scientific hypothesis that there is a gardener is not as the believer does not accept any falsification of his views
  • if religious believers keep saying ‘the usual characteristics of a being don’t apply to God’ when challenged they end up with a description of God that has no content
  • the statements a religious believer is making are meaningless because they refuse to accept challenges which could prove them false
  • someone who refuses to give up their belief no matte what is discovered about the world is not really talking about the world at all
118
Q

what is the phrase used by Flew to assert what happens when religious people modify there belief to counter challenges until there is nothing left of the original assertion

A
  • the claims religious believers make die a “death by a thousand qualifications”
119
Q

sum up Flew’s claims about falsification

A
  • for Flew, a claim that can’t be falsified is not saying anything at all
  • for a claim like ‘god loves us’ to have meaningful content we need to know what the world would look like if God did not love us
  • but believers can’t answer under what circumstance ‘god loves us’ would be false
  • “if there is nothing which an alleged assertion denies then there is nothing which it asserts wither and so is not really an assertion”
120
Q

what may have influences people to accept Flew’s thinking

A
  • he was writing only a few years after SWW
  • although he doesn’t refer to it, people must have wondered whether he was right to question whether faith in the loving care of God really meant anything if it did not provide any guarantee against suffering
  • holocaust - God’s chosen people didn’t seem lucky
121
Q

who was Hare and what did he suggest

A
  • he gave a radical response to Flew
  • agreed Flew succeeded in showing failure of RL to make meaningful truth claims
  • but said when people use RL they shouldn’t be interpreted as truth-claims in a cognitive sense but as expressions of what he called a ‘blik’
122
Q

what was Hare’s parable of the insane student

A
  • student believes all professors are out to get him
  • no evidence will dissuade him
  • if presented with a kind professor he sees this as evidence only of the diabolical cunning of a professor giving him a false sense of security
  • Hare notes that while the lunatic’s view cannot be proven or disproven, it profoundly alters his life (like the objection to logical positivism)
123
Q

what did Hare invent the word Blik to describe

A
  • the insane student’s unfalsifiable conviction

- fundamental beliefs which influence our perspective on the world

124
Q

what did Hare argue about Bliks

A
  • that we all have our own with which we approach the world and make judgements about it
  • way of understanding our experiences and finding meaning in the world
  • religious people and atheists have bliks
125
Q

how are all other people similar to Hare’s insane student

A
  • this lunatic has an insane blik about professors
  • we have a sane one not no blik at all
  • there must be two sides to any argument
  • if he has a wrong blik then those who are right about professors must have a right blik
126
Q

how does Hare argue bliks show us what we are doing when we make a religious statement

A
  • not an explanation of the world but life changing even though unfalsifiable
  • matter of deep concern for us and our lives are different for believing it
  • when believers say ‘God exists’ they are expressing a blik because their lives are different for believing it
127
Q

what are religious claims for Hare

A
  • expressions of personal attitudes or commitment to particular ways of life
  • they are not testable assertions that x or y is the case
  • a way of saying how the speaker intends to view the world and frame their interpretations of it
  • meaningful because they have a profound impact on how the person that asserts such a blik approaches life even though unfalsifiable
128
Q

how did Flew respond to Hare

A
  • argued bliks do not account for the way in which religious believers think of themselves as speaking
  • believers see themselves as making genuine assertions, which they see as true facts about the world
  • argues Hare is unorthodox
  • if Hare’s religion is a blik involving no cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of a supposed personal creator then surely he is not a Christian at all
  • moreover, if religious claims were not intended as assertions then many religious activities would become fraudulent or merely silly
129
Q

what does Hick argue about Hare’s bliks

A
  • bliks contain a fundamental inconsistency
  • hare provides no criterion for distinguishing between sane or insane bliks
  • Hare assumes that one can make the distinction but there seems to be an inconsistency in that a difference between sane and insane bliks is ruled out by his insistence that bliks are unverifiable and unfalsifiable
  • if there is no way to confirm or disconfirm bliks there is no basis for judging them
  • but perhaps this misses the point - its about showing the power of belief rather than been able to distinguish between sane and insane bliks
130
Q

what are bliks potentially a sign of

A
  • madness
  • it seems mad that someone refuses to entertain the possibility they might be wrong
  • true faith should not be fanaticism
  • it is also wrong to assume every believer refuses the possibility they are wrong
  • the notion of faith implies the possibility of error
  • when evil happens even some saints attest to their faith been tested and the difficulties of belief
  • Hare’s lunatic has no such doubts thus why he is insane
131
Q

who was Basil Mitchell

A
  • he responded to Flew in a more interesting and perhaps more successful way than Hare
  • Unlike Hare he wanted to maintain that religious statements are genuinely factual though not straightforwardly falsifiable
132
Q

what is Mitchell’s parable of the Partisan (resistance fighter)

A
  • country occupied by the enemy and the partisan is a resistance fighter
  • the partisan meets a stranger who claims to be the head of the entire resistance
  • the fighter believes him but is warned by the stranger his faith will be tested and he will find the man at times working with the enemy
  • the Partisan maintains his belief that the Stranger is the head throughout the war even tho the stranger is seen in the enemy uniform
133
Q

what is the point of Mitchell’s parable of the Partisan

A
  • the partisan does not deny there is strong evidence against his belief that the stranger is who he claims to be
  • to remain sane the partisan must accept the reality of the evidence against his belief the same way religious believers must against belief in loving God or they are guilty of self-delusion
  • Mitchell does not argue that the believer has blind faith - she has reason for faith as the partisan does
  • unlike Hare’s bliks which you can’t have reasons for and the insane student who doesn’t accept or even consider the contrary to his blik
134
Q

what does Mitchell accept

A
  • Mitchell as a believer accepts that faith can be mistaken

- to have faith is not to deny it is not falsifiable

135
Q

how does Mitchell agree with Flew

A
  • agrees that theological statements should be understood as assertions
  • the partisan is making a factual claim when he says the stranger is on our side
  • he is claiming that one interpretation of the facts is correct against those who say the stranger is lying
136
Q

what does Mitchell say about statements like God is love

A
  • while they cannot be conclusively falsified its essential to recognise they could be false and there is an unspecified point beyond which it would be impossible to support the view
  • for proper faith the pull of the contradictory evidence must be acknowledged
  • blind faith is absurd
137
Q

how are Mitchell’s beliefs different to Hare

A
  • for Mitchell a mature belief is not blind faith
  • Mitchell argues religious statements do have factual content (are cognitive)
  • the partisan may eventually find out if he was right or wrong to trust the stranger
  • while in the world, evidence for a loving God may seem incomplete but there is still factual content to assertions of existence of God as it is in the end true or false
  • Hare claims bliks are groundless but for Mitchell the Partisan’s trust in the stranger is not groundless - the partisan makes a deliberate choice to trust the stranger based on the impression of when they met
  • belief in the stranger is not a blik because there are times when the partisan may doubt his belief
138
Q

what shows Flew was wrong to claim that religious believers are indifferent to evidence which challenges their belief

A
  • they do recognise their beliefs as falsifiable
  • they go through ‘trials of faith’
  • Mitchell like Hick believes one day the truth will be revealed
  • Mitchell thus answers Flew by accepting that a religious statement like God exists is both falsifiable due to trials of faith and verifiable after we die

Year Two RS (25 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions